Dataset Information

Accuracy of computer-guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants in the anterior region: A prospective clinical study.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants requires precision, which can be enhanced by using a computer-guided system. This prospective clinical study examines the accuracy of partially guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic implants in the anterior region. MATERIALS AND METHODS:One-piece ceramic dental implants were placed in 20 patients who were missing a central or lateral incisor. Partially guided dental implant placements were performed in all cases. The deviations in the implant positions were analyzed by superimposing post-operative cone beam computed tomography images over pre-operative treatment planning images. The results were reported as deviations (mean ± standard deviation) for three aspects (3D offset, mesio-distal, labio-lingual, and apico-coronal) and in three dimensions (the angle, coronal, and apical parts). RESULTS:Implants were successfully placed in 20 patients. The mean angular deviation was 4.23±1.84°, whereas the mean coronal 3D offset was 0.98±0.48 mm, and the mean apical 3D offset was 1.57±0.46 mm. CONCLUSIONS:A prospective clinical study involving 20 patients was conducted to measure the accuracy of computer-guided implantation of one-piece ceramic dental implants. Accuracy was determined by comparing the planned implant position to the actual position. Greater accuracy can be expected at the coronal part than at the apical part. The coronal 3D offset was found to be the most accurate.

SUBMITTER: Suksod N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7489525 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of computer-guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants in the anterior region: A prospective clinical study.

Suksod Nopparat N Kunavisarut Chatchai C Kitisubkanchana Jira J

PloS one 20200914 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>Placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants requires precision, which can be enhanced by using a computer-guided system. This prospective clinical study examines the accuracy of partially guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic implants in the anterior region.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>One-piece ceramic dental implants were placed in 20 patients who were missing a central or lateral incisor. Partially guided dental implant placements were performed in all ...[more]

PMID: 32925962

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Ten clinicians new to implant dentistry inserted one anterior (central incisor) and one posterior (first molar) implants per protocol in training maxillary models. The FG protocol involved drilling and implant placement through the guide, while the PG protocol controlled the pilot drilling only. The FH implant placement was completed without the aid of any guide. A total of 30 models were used, and 60 implants were inserted. The implant vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations from planned positions were calculated. RESULTS:The FG protocol provided the most accurate implant placement in relation to horizontal neck (0.47 mm-0.52 mm), horizontal apex (0.71 mm-0.74 mm), and angle deviations (2.42o-2.61o). The vertical deviation was not significantly different among the different protocols. The PG protocol was generally similar to the FH protocol with a horizontal neck deviation of 1.01 mm-1.14 mm, horizontal apex deviation of 1.02 mm-1.35 mm, and angle deviation of 4.65o-7.79o. The FG protocol showed similarity in the accuracy of the anterior and posterior implants. There was a tendency for inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants for the PG and FH protocols. CONCLUSIONS:In the hands of recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry, it appears that the accuracy of the FG protocol was superior to the other protocols and was not influenced by the position of the implants. The PG and FH protocols showed inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement in model surgeries according to the design of the drills (straight drills or step drills) used to finalize the implant bed during pilot-guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).MethodsModel surgeries were carried out on resin models randomly assigned to three study groups. Virtual planning software (coDiagnostiX 10.6, Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada) was used to plan the implant positions. In Groups 1 and 2, pilot-guided sCAIS was performed. Straight drills were used in Group 1, and step drills were used in Group 2 to finalize the implant beds. In Group 3, fully guided sCAIS was performed using a universal fully guided kit (RealGUIDE Full Surgical Kit 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy). A total of 90 dental implants (Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were placed (six implants per model, five models per study group). The primary outcome variables (angular deviation, coronal global deviation, and apical global deviation) were calculated for all implants based on the comparison of the preoperative surgical plan with the postoperative scans.ResultsGroup 2 (coronal global deviation, 0.78 ± 0.29 mm; apical global deviation, 1.02 ± 0.56 mm) showed significantly lower values of both global deviation variables than Group 1 (coronal global deviation, 0.95 ± 0.20 mm; apical global deviation, 1.42 ± 0.49 mm). However, there was no significant difference in angular deviation between Groups 1 and 2 (7.56 ± 2.92° and 6.44 ± 2.84°). Group 3 produced significantly lower values of all three primary outcome variables (angular deviation, 2.36 ± 0.90°; coronal global deviation, 0.59 ± 0.28 mm; apical global deviation, 0.90 ± 0.29 mm) than Group 1 and significantly lower angular deviation and coronal global deviation values than Group 2.ConclusionsThe design of the drills used to finalize implant osteotomies during pilot-guided sCAIS influences dental implant placement accuracy. Using step drills instead of straight drills for final osteotomies decreases deviation from the surgical plan. The fully guided approach performed better than the pilot-guided sCAIS.

Project description:ObjectiveTo analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.Materials and methodsBased on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.ResultsEight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.ConclusionsDue to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of computer-guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants in the anterior region: A prospective clinical study.

Publications

Accuracy of computer-guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants in the anterior region: A prospective clinical study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets